* Nevermind, Christians are certain, atheists say certainly not.

Perhaps it is because in my adult years, creatures like bigfoot, moved from scary monsters that terrified me as a child, to “animals” in my mind.

Creatures like the werewolf, or Mothman, are lumped in with myths as monsters rather than cryptids because I associate them with the supernatural. Though I am aware that there are arguments against it. The Legends spun around them are more fantastical to me than the legends around Bigfoot (though again you can argue this with some of the a stories in Native American myths).

Nonetheless it is an interesting debate. I for one use Cryptid for hidden animals and perhaps the Term Mythic-Crypids for the ones that are “monsters” or have more of a supernatural bent like the Jersey Devil?

The problem with Mothman that sasquatch and yeti don’t have:

Not many more people have seen Mothman than have seen unicorns and centaurs.

The other two have so much evidence in their favor that one could randomly toss 50% and the rest would be compelling. Not only have many, many people in all walks of life seen both the animals and their tracks, but the encounters span just about everything a wild animal can do, including pooping, fighting, garbage-can raiding and sex. It’s almost not possible to have an encounter with a wild animal the type of which I haven’t read of someone having with a sasquatch. (Authenticity earmark first class.) Both sasquatch and yeti tracks have been found with diagnosible genetic deformities. Decades before anyone had spent any significant time studying the known great apes in the field, key great-ape characteristics and behaviors confirmed by science in those studies had already been described, many times, in yeti and sasquatch encounters.

John Bindernagel – a straight-up, 40-year wildlife biologist – says that the sasquatch has been discovered. He’s written two books on this that scientists not wanting to sound like utter ignoramuses should crack. He’s not the only scientist who thinks so. It’s just that like other discoveries now part of scientific canon, it hasn’t been acknowledged by the mainstream yet.

That’s the only difference between “evidence” and “proof.”

Don’t think we’re there yet with Mothman.

But people (go to Texasbigfoot.com) are heading into the field, in places where they expect encounters with sasquatch, and having them.

Maybe this is what I think a cryptid is:

If you have the testable hypothesis “this is an animal, and if one goes to x, one can find it there”

…then, you have a cryptid.

And you can’t have something test out “sasquatch” if there isn’t a type specimen that everyone agrees is “sasquatch.” DNA will not get us there; it will only give us more info after the mainstream finally takes the blindfolds off.

And the idea that “bigfoot” or “alien big cats” or “nessie” is being studied by mainstream scientists is ridiculous. A few folks with some knowledge and access to cash do serious research. The rest of the scientific world looks at the rest of us and shakes their collective head.

Perhaps when we gather enough tangible, testable, evidence then a cryptid will move into “Zoology” for “real” study. But for now, unless you have quantifiable proof that something ISN’T a cryptid, it’s still a level playing field.

I enjoyed your reply, thank you.

Actually, no malice intended on my part. The “pot-stirring” metaphor was merely used to acknowledge your intention to spark a discussion – which, undeniably, you accomplished.

If nothing else, our little exchange seems to nicely reinforce your supposition that certain “loaded” words can provoke different – or even unintended – perceptions…

So, please, keep stirring – life is boring otherwise!

I think your mainstream population still equates “monsters” with Bigfoot and Nessie and the like (I refrain from even using cryptid or cryptozoology because I know first hand that when I throw one of those words into a conversation, a lot of people have no idea what I just said). And because of shows like Finding Bigfoot, Destination Truth and so on, cryptid gets lumped in with monsters and the strange and the weird.

For my money, cryptids are living breathing critters that have yet to be “Recognized” officially. Now critters such as Bigfoot are in a much better position to be accepted by the mainstream population these days, and largely I think because of the shows associated with them, but also because of the internet. I remember that before the net (you know, back in the bronze age of man), I could read about cryptids, occasionally catch a show about them, but there was very little way to connect with others who hunted for these things unless you actually lived in or near an environment populated by one (who was I to know that there might be one in my backyard–again it wasn’t until the introduction of the internet before I was able to assemble such info).

As to everything else: I think the minute anything “supernatural” (another buzz word) comes into the mix, I think we’re relegating it to Fortean or supernatural. Precisely because of what DWA and others have said–because there’s no way to quantify what is being seen. There’s no physical evidence to push it into the next level.

Then again, I think we can also blame the media for adding that supernatural element a lot of times. As Loren said, Mothman was being described as a big bird before others got a hold of it. The more mysterious and monstrous a thing seen, the more people are likely to tune in or read past a headline.

That’s why I’m not a fan when people start associating things like Bigfoot and UFO sightings. Well, there may indeed have been a UFO sighting in the general area of a Bigfoot sighting, but there’s plenty of other answers available other than UFO’s and Bigfoot are connected. With a large enough population of Bigfoots and their ability to cover a lot of distance, I’d say it would be tough not to find a place where the two have intersected. It still doesn’t mean they’re connected.

Again, UFO’s are mysterious and unexplained, and oh my gosh, so is Bigfoot, so since they’ve got those things in common, they must be related (don’t even get me started on the logical fallacy of that argument). I think that’s the real correlation there. Weird means everything else weird is related too.

My point on that front is that it’s easy for cryptids to get sucked down into that “Supernatural” or Fortean realm. Granted, in the beginnings, things like Nessie and Bigfoot were probably chronicled as part of the Fortean, and it’s only been separated with the onset of cryptozoology, but what are ya gonna do?

Bottom Line: cryptids are things that we attempt to quantify–eventually proving that it either exists or doesn’t.

I wasn’t attempting to stir the pot. At all. I was merely pointing out that I sometimes muse on the possibility that the word “Cryptid” provokes imagery of something truly weird. Rather than something that may just be an animal that has survived extinction, or, an animal seen way outside of its normal environment (like wallabies and pumas in the UK).

I have stressed there’s nothing wrong – at all – with the term “cryptid,” and there’s nothing to lose sleep over when it comes to whether or not it’s the right word to use or not. I am merely offering my own opinion as to how some people might perceive the image and nature of an animal described as a “cryptid.” Rather than an animal described as simply being out of place.

Numerous cryptozoological-themed books have been written with the word “monster” in the title. That word, too, provokes a specific image.

And that’s all I’m saying: no deliberate pot-stirring. Just an observation that specific words relative to specific creatures may provoke specific imagery in the mind of the person reading that word. And if a different word is used, it may provoke different imagery in the mind.

“Monster” may very well provoke a far different image in the mind of the general public to “cryptid.” In the same way that “unknown cat-like beast” might provoke a far different image to “probable out of place cougar.”

How we describe these things does, I think, affect how the public – in particular – perceives them. That was my point. And at the end of the day, it’s actually a minor point! I really do have far better things to do with my time than stir pots for the sake of it!

When we get into defining it backwards, by saying that it “might be paranormal,” then trying to say it may or may not be a cryptid because of some theory someone has, we really undermine the open nature of the “cryptid” definition.

Mothman, for example, as I have pointed out too often, was first called a “Big Bird” by the eyewitnesses, until a newspaper employee dreamed up the term “Mothman.” Keel’s demonological view added to the confusion. But strictly speaking, what was seen is a “cryptid” because we don’t know what it was, not because we knew what it really was.